INUEHEHHWRHWKMWMNMATWWQQWE DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY,' _ BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1cE; L NARAYAN;As\AfAE13f' 'V D 1:' WRIT PETITION Nq..1_047 o..E 2010 2 BEUNEEN: M/s.VAsAv1 TRADE LINES, 3 A . REPRESENTED BY ITS PAR'I'i\EER= K.L.NA(}ESH, SON OF LATE }:.'LAXMANAsI:§ETT.Y--,.,_ . " R.M.c.YARD;».¢4 'V ._j » TIPTUR -- 672 20.1. » .... :PETITIONER [BY sR1.K.R.NAGEN.D'RA, ;41D'f.OC_ATE) . AND: 1. THE AGRICULT'URAL_I3;RODU'CE COMMITTEE, V 'REPRESENTED BY IT'S"SE'CREATARY. ":_R.M.c.YARD;' _ T=;?rDR_5'72'2.0Tv1D,' = TUMKUR_ i3lSTRIC'I; DIRECTOR?" A AGRICULTURAL MARKETING * 1 'DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT or: KARNATAKA. VIDI7IA--NA"SOUDHA. BANGALORE - 550 001. :RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED PRAYING To QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE) 15? RESPONDENT
D’I’.24«12-2008 MARKED AS ANNEX–D. ”
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR 4_
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE _I~f-otL..OWIIx1G’: .. I
The prayer made petitioneiafis quash
AnneXure~D dated :«..II.ot’i.r;e isstied by the
respondent caneeling__tVheV site made in
favour of
2; that as per Annexure–
A dated ” ‘respondent aliotted a site
measuring’-.3’z’v’ X -707, 311.6 the possession certificate was
aISo’3’«iss_t’1ec1 as A’15eI’v—Ax1’nexure«B. He submits that he has
fetitimfe consideration as per Annexure–C.
bespite without affording any opportunity, it
‘<._is intirhated to the petitioner that the site which has
allotted in his favour stands canceled on the
gtound that petitioner has failed to put up construction
7
Within the time specified in the lease-<3-.2*m~sale
agreement.
3. In the light of the st1brnissi_o’n;”
through the papers in the petition.;”” A. it A
4. From Annexure–A itt«,iS»seen th.at*t-he eite, which
was allotted with shall be
put up within’ a the date of
taking possesS’i;oar1V. on 1.3.1987 the
possession: iesued. No doubt, the
petitivoniert consideration as per
Anne)ture’+C, complied the requirement
of }:cas_e«cuxrn.-‘sate agreement entered into between the
_ that he should put up construction
prescribed in the agreement. The
conditi_ori-ajiecified that any failure on the part of the
peititioiier in putting up construction within the time
“”,_éVti’pt’ilated entaiis eanceliation of the aliotment and
-~–p:rope:’ty vests With the A P M C. In the light of the
4–
same, Annexure-D notice was issued by referring the
judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2007 ( W P No. is
not mentioned) Canceling the allotment and
the site in favour of the A P M C.
5. The petitioner and respondents”‘i’1av_’e ‘d’e.r1i:ere_d ” ”
into an agreement and whatever terms _eondit.io1?3s
entered therein, both parties’-~.sha1’1i”stand
In this case, though ;__the alg1o.t.r:ne_nt.._gWas’ magiepin 1987,
the petitioner has faiI”edg-to~tpVt1tiv lipefeorrstruction within
the time specified. Vvirnptigned action is
takeniiin “of the agreement. There is
no illegaiityin of the respondents. Hence I
dee’§inve_.p”toVv entertaingithe present writ petition and it is
t acc0rd.i_fIgi5rA..i’e}_ected.
Sd/-~
KEDGE